A range-normalization model of context-dependent choice: A new model and evidence

PLoS Computational Biology

Volumn 8, Issue 7, 2012, Pages

  Soltani, Alireza ^a,b   de Martino, Benedetto ^b,c   Camerer, Colin ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEURONS;

ADJUSTMENT MECHANISMS; BEHAVIORAL DATA; CONTEXT DEPENDENT; NEURAL ACTIVITY; NEURAL MECHANISMS; NEURAL REPRESENTATIONS; NEURONAL MODELING; NORMALISATION; THEORY OF CHOICES; UTILITY THEORY;

COMPUTATION THEORY;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CORRELATIONAL STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; PREDICTION; PROCESS MODEL; RESPONSE TIME; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 84864608814     PISSN: 1553734X     EISSN: 15537358     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002607     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Luce RD, (1959) Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis New York John Wiley and Sons.
2. Debreu G, (1960) Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Am Econ Rev 50: 186-188.
3. Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O, Rubinstein A, Kuhn HW, (2007) Theory of games and economic behavior Princeton, NJ Princeton University Press.
4. Glimcher PW, (2008) Choice: towards a standard back-pocket model. In: Glimcher PW, Camerer CF, Fehr E, Poldrack RA, editors. Neuroeconomics: Decision making and the brain New York Academic Press pp. 503-521.
5. Rangel A, (2008) The computation and comparison of value in goal-directed choice. In: Glimcher PW, Camerer CF, Fehr E, Poldrack RA, editors. Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain New York Academic Press pp. 425-439.
6. Huber J, Payne J, Puto C, (1982) Adding Asymmetrically Dominated Alternatives: Violations of Regularity and the Similarity Hypothesis. J Consum Res 9: 90-98.
7. Tversky A, Simonson I, (1993) Context-dependent preferences. Manage Sci pp. 1179-1189.
8. Huber J, Puto C, (1983) Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating attraction and substitution effects. J Consum Res 10: 31-44.
9. Dhar R, (1996) Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organ Behav Hum Dec 67: 280-293.
10. Bateman IJ, Munro A, Poe G, (2008) Decoy effects in choice experiments and contingent valuation: asymmetric dominance. Land Econ 84: 115-127.
11. Lehmann D, Pan Y, (1994) Context Effects, New Brand Entry, and Consideration Sets. J Marketing Res 31: 364-374.
12. Herne K, (1997) Decoy alternatives in policy choices: Asymmetric domination and compromise effects. Eur J Polit Econ 13: 575-589.
13. Herne K, (1999) The effects of decoy gambles on individual choice. Exp Econ 2: 31-40.
14. Hurly T, Oseen M, (1999) Context-dependent, risk-sensitive foraging preferences in wild rufous hummingbirds. Anim Behav 58: 59-66.
15. Shafir S, Waite TA, Smith BH, (2002) Context-dependent violations of rational choice in honeybees (Apis mellifera) and gray jays (Perisoreus canadensis). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51: 180-187.
16. Bateson M, Healy SD, Hurly TA, (2003) Context-dependent foraging decisions in rufous hummingbirds. Proc Biol Sci 270: 1271-1276.
17. Noonan MP, Walton ME, Behrens TEJ, Sallet J, Buckley MJ, et al. (2010) Separate value comparison and learning mechanisms in macaque medial and lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 20547-20552.
18. Masicampo EJ, Baumeister RF, (2008) Toward a physiology of dual-process reasoning and judgment: lemonade, willpower, and expensive rule-based analysis. Psychol Sci 19: 255-260.
19. Slaughter JE, Sinar EF, Highhouse S, (1999) Decoy effects and attribute-level inferences. J Appl Psychol 84: 823-828.
20. De Martino B, Kumaran D, Seymour B, Dolan RJ, (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313: 684-687.
21. Wedell DH, (1991) Distinguishing among models of contextually induced preference reversals. J Exp Psychol Learn 17: 767-778.
22. Bhargava M, Kim J, Srivastava R, (2000) Explaining Context Effects on Choice Using a Model of Comparative Judgment. J Consum Psychol 9: 167-177.
23. Shafir E, Osherson D, Smith EE, (1989) An Advantage Model of Choice. J Behav Decis Making 2: 1-23.
24. Usher M, McClelland JL, (2004) Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychol Rev 111: 757-769.
25. Usher M, Elhalal A, McClelland JL, (2008) The neurodynamics of choice, value-based decisions, and preference reversal. In: Chater N, Oaksford M, editors. The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Science New York Oxford University Press pp. 277-300.
26. Roe RM, Busemeyer JR, Townsend JT, (2001) Multialternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol Rev 108: 370-392.
27. Johnson JG, Busemeyer JR, (2005) A Dynamic, Stochastic, Computational Model of Preference Reversal Phenomena. Psychol Rev 112: 841-861.
28. Rumelhart DL, Greeno JG, (1971) Similarity between stimuli: An experimental test of the Luce and Restle choice models. J Math Psychol 8: 370-381.
29. Tversky A, (1972) Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychol Rev 79: 281-299.
30. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ, (1993) The adaptive decision maker New York Cambridge Univ Press.
31. Dayan P, Abbott LF, (2001) Theoretical neuroscience: Computational and mathematical modeling of neural systems Cambridge, ME MIT Press.
32. Carandini M, Heeger DJ, (2012) Normalization as a canonical neural computation. Nat Rev Neurosc 13: 51-62.
33. Tversky A, (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 84: 327-352.
34. Faisal a A, Selen LPJ, Wolpert DM, (2008) Noise in the nervous system. Nat Rev Neurosc 9: 292-303.
35. Kahneman D, Tversky A, (1984) Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol 39: 341-350.
36. Gilovich T, Griffin DW, Kahneman D, (2002) Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgement UK Cambridge University Press.
37. Soltani A, Wang X-J, (2006) A biophysically based neural model of matching law behavior: melioration by stochastic synapses. J Neurosci 26: 3731-3744.
38. Soltani A, Wang X-J, (2008) From biophysics to cognition: reward-dependent adaptive choice behavior. Curr Opin Neurobiol 18: 209-216.
39. Soltani A, Wang X-J, (2010) Synaptic computation underlying probabilistic inference. Nat Neurosci 13: 112-119.
40. Malone BJ, Scott BH, Semple MN, (2002) Context-dependent adaptive coding of interaural phase disparity in the auditory cortex of awake macaques. J Neurosci 22: 4625-4638.
41. Bartlett EL, Wang X, (2005) Long-lasting modulation by stimulus context in primate auditory cortex. J Neurophysiol 94: 83-104.
42. Allman J, Miezin F, McGuinness E, (1985) Stimulus specific responses from beyond the classical receptive field: neurophysiological mechanisms for local-global comparisons in visual neurons. Annu Rev Neurosci 8: 407-430.
43. Albright TD, Stoner GR, (2002) Contextual influences on visual processing. Annu Rev Neurosci 25: 339-379.
44. Clifford CW, Webster MA, Stanley GB, Stocker AA, Kohn A, et al. (2007) Visual adaptation: neural, psychological and computational aspects. Vision Res 47: 3125-3131.
45. Laughlin S, (1981) A simple coding procedure enhances a neuron's information capacity. Z Naturforsch 36: 910-912.
46. Field DJ, (1987) Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. J Opt Soc Am A 4: 2379-2394.
47. Olshausen BA, Field DJ, (1996) Emergence of simple-cell receptive field properties by learning a sparse code for natural images. Nature 381: 607-609.
48. Smirnakis SM, Berry MJ, Warland DK, Bialek W, Meister M, (1997) Adaptation of retinal procssing to image contrast and spatial scale. Nature 386: 69-73.
49. Fairhall AL, Lewen GD, Bialek W, de Ruyter van Steveninck RR, (2001) Efficiency and ambiguity in an adaptive neural code. Nature 412: 787-792.
50. Simoncelli EP, Olshausen BA, (2001) Natural image statistics and neural representation. Annu Rev Neurosci 24: 1193-1216.
51. Padoa-Schioppa C, (2009) Range-adapting representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex. J Neurosci 29: 14004-14014.
52. Louie K, Grattan LE, Glimcher PW, (2011) Reward value-based gain control: divisive normalization in parietal cortex. J Neurosci 31: 10627-10639.
53. Tremblay L, Schultz W, (1999) Relative reward preference in primate orbitofrontal cortex. Nature 398: 704-708.
54. Padoa-Schioppa C, Assad JA, (2008) The representation of economic value in the orbitofrontal cortex is invariant for changes of menu. Nat Neurosci 11: 95-102.
55. Heeger DJ, (1992) Normalization of cell responses in cat striate cortex. Visual Neurosci 9: 181-197.
56. Carandini M, Heeger DJ, (1994) Summation and division by neurons in primate visual cortex. Science 264: 1333-1336.
57. Iyengar SS, Lepper MR, (2000) When choice is demotivating: can one desire too much of a good thing? J Pers Soc Psychol 79: 995-1006.
58. Parducci A, (1974) Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In: Carterette E, Friedman M, editors. Handbook of perception New York Academic Press, Vol. 2 pp. 127-141.
59. Wernerfelt B, (1995) A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market Data to Infer Utilities. J Consum Res 21: 627-633.
60. Prelec D, Wernerfelt B, Zettelmeyer F, (1997) The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. J Consum Res 24: 118-125.
61. Kamenica E, (2008) Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Am Econ Rev pp. 1-51.
62. Ratneshwar S, Shocker A, Stewart D, (1987) Toward Understanding the Attraction Effect: The Implications of Product Stimulus Meaningfulness and Familiarity. J Consum Res 13: 520-533.
63. Holt CA, Laury SK, (2002) Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev 92: 1644-1655.
64. Soltani A, Lee D, Wang X-J, (2006) Neural mechanism for stochastic behaviour during a competitive game. Neural Netw 19: 1075-1090.